Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 22 2018, @07:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the everybody-self-reports,-right? dept.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/606463186/with-billions-at-stake-supreme-court-rules-states-may-tax-online-retailers

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states can require retailers to collect and remit sales taxes on out-of-state purchases. The 5-to-4 decision reversed decades-old decisions that protected out-of-state vendors from sales tax obligations unless the vendor had a physical presence in the state.

Those earlier decisions, one half a century ago, the other a quarter-century ago, date back to a time when mail-order sales were relatively small and online sales were all but nonexistent. As the justices acknowledged Thursday, however, the court back then "could not have envisioned" a world in which e-commerce sales have revolutionized the dynamics of the national economy.

Writing for the five-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the previous decisions "were flawed," and in the modern economy, they "create, rather than resolve market distortions." In today's context, he said, the physical presence rule is "an extraordinary imposition by the judiciary on the states' authority to collect taxes and perform critical public functions."

Furthermore, Kennedy said, the previous decisions effectively functioned as a "judicially-created tax shelter" for out-of-state retailers, and put local businesses at a "competitive disadvantage."

The problems with these earlier decisions, Kennedy said, were made "all the more egregious" by technological innovation. "The Internet's prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy," he wrote in the majority opinion.

[...] The decision was a victory for South Dakota, which, like some other states, has no income tax and relies on sales taxes to fund most of the state's services. Because of dramatic fall-offs in state sales taxes, the state in 2016 enacted a law to test the physical presence rule. Three large online vendors, Wayfair, Newegg, and Overstock, challenged the law in court, and lost on Thursday.

[...] "The chessboard just looks a lot different now," said Stephanie Martz, general counsel for the National Retail Federation, which includes 18,000 businesses large and small. "Now our members are going to be able to figure out how to construct their businesses without worrying about whether putting a distribution center on this side of a state line or that side of the state line will result in a different tax implication."

While the court made clear that the states do not have unlimited power to require sales tax collection, "The court blessed South Dakota's law," said Carl Davis, research director for the Institute of Taxation and Economic policy.

The law specifically protects small businesses from collecting sales taxes if they have less than $100,000 in sales or fewer than 200 transactions in the state. The state also provides sales tax collection software for free for any business that wants it, and using that software immunizes the business from audit liability. Perhaps most importantly, the state law does not permit sales tax collection for past purchases, meaning that businesses don't have to worry about a huge tax bill that they never anticipated.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday June 22 2018, @08:13PM (1 child)

    by VLM (445) on Friday June 22 2018, @08:13PM (#696930)

    Oh and a side dish of previous discussion is the court stated the feds can't tell the states how to apply state taxes.

    The feds were applying a common sense rule to all states.

    The ruling does not mean states MUST implement stupid laws, it merely means the feds can't stop states from implementing stupid laws.

    You KNOW what poorly governed states like CA or IL or NY will do, vs intelligently governed states, now that the feds leash is off. So the real effect long term is likely to be increased rate of capital flight and job loss in nanny / leftist states. And that's where most of the politicization comes into play in the discussion. IL will be declaring bankruptcy "soon" regardless what they do for a variety of interesting demographic reasons, and the auditors will not permit them not to tax the hell out of any victims left in IL, so expect massive economic growth in neighboring states, and thats where the discussion turns into boring bashing politics. The usual suspects doing boosterism for C(r)ook county and Skokie vs the usual suspects doing boosterism for Milwaukee or Lake Geneva or whatever.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 22 2018, @08:40PM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday June 22 2018, @08:40PM (#696949) Journal

    Well there are constitutionally mandated ways whereby the Feds can tell the state how to apply taxes. Article 1, section 10 for example.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.